OMFG I've had it with you. Go up and re-read what i've said. They would own anyone if the conditions that they're fighting under are close to par. Go get a dictionary to see what it means. I won't repeat myself. Did i ever say the monks are gods? Stop twisting my words. they're humans, and of course they have limitations.

And to destroy your HK movie statement; Shaolin was reowned even before the invention of TV and modernization in the East. After all, it made itself into world history books. And what makes you think backflips and $hit are all the monks could do? You're so incredibly biased i swear with the mentality that you're right and everything else = wrong.

So you're reverting your mongol statement right now and retorting with Spartans? I've never denied the greatness of the Spartans did I? Or are you trying to twist my words like you always do?

Simple comparison:

Spartans trained since childhood

Mongols trained since childhood

Some Shaolin monks train since childhood; but all train for the rest of their lives like the two mentioned above.

Now what makes you think a Spartan can beat a monk? Oh, just based on the Illiad and the Battle of Thermopylae where 7300 Greeks held off hordes of Persians with complete terrain and equipment advantage. I'm sure child-abuse would make great warriors. that type of training was to test the children their bravery, endurance, and resourcefullness, no where in terms of fighting skills and abilities. Afterall, the Spartans are reowned for their discipline and bravery

The monks' credibility at least got thousands of years of history plus some documentaries, videos, and articles--stuff that your mind probably closed itself to.

Just to quote something you said





And don't twist my words around. I didn't say a Shaolin Monk would own a mongol. If they fight in melee, the monk would most likely win. Ranged combat; the monk is as good as a target. Your rationale of equipment = skills is completely beyond me. Each type of warriors have their own specialties, but since the original topic here was Samurai vs Legionnaire, i consider that as melee unless the original thread starter intended it as a match between mounted Samurai and Roman Auxillary Cavalry.

If you really want to play the stupid equipment game:

Fully Armored Hopelites in Phalanx > Monks

Mounted Mongol Warriors > Monks

Legionnaries with Pillums > Monks and hoplites

random person with a machinegun > all

Monks > all in hand-to-hand combat and certain melee weaponry.

Happy now?

No offence but this means be stupid, do you know the differece btw training in a monasterium as a monk and trainig in a battlefield as a legionaire? Serious just shut up pls.

You are talking about "roman auxillary cavalry", but i never heard of that if you can explain what it is. By the way your fantasy army wont even get close to roman cause the ogranes and balliste would make them all die even before to realize they lost from the begin. Have a reserch about this "roman auxillary cavalry".

Sup Wokoo, I've got no problems with you. But if you wanna barge in like a headless fly and be an @$$, two can play the same game.

Thanks for selectively reading btw. YOU do not know how they train at the monastery, but at least i have an idea of how they train--at least the modern version anyways for people who do not wish to join the order, but just to learn the martial arts themselves. Do yourself a favor and shut up.

As for Roman auxillary cavalry; the Romans were notorious for its infantry, and their cavalry clearly sucked. They hired auxillaries, aka people from various regions but not citizens of Rome, as their Cavalrymen. They mostly used Gaulish and Sarmatians to form the bulk of their limited cavalry forces. And if you haven't noticed yet, i was referring to the original topic itself about legionnaire vs samurai. Do yourself a favor and shut up before you embarrass yourself.

And yeah, don't try to double post. You can get in trouble for that.

u r verusing 2 tht are in different eras.... so there will always be unfair advantage....
but with all say.... Roman Army is great but to match the samurai... it all depends who actually leads the army.... if it is Caesar... i hav no doubt tht romans will win....n roman soilders will never fight one on one.... cos it just doens't work....n this isn't a boxing ring either.....

as for greeks, if lead by ALexander the Great... they are just invinicble.... but their armor is way too light..... against the arrows of the samurai...but u must take into account tht it is history that the greeks lost extremely easily against the romans.... as their formation is rigid and not as flexible as the romans.......

spartans are the best.... but then again.... how good they are is definitely exaggerated throught myths and $hit......\

2
neo

btw it was 500 spartans......n bravery n discipline alone can not win them so much battles against the odds.... despite being exaggerated... by the Spartan myth... they are without doubt great fighters..... this was reinforced in Xenophon n to an extent Plutarch..

2
neo

As much as i do not want to admit.... having studied roman history to great degrees..... Coo is right bout the roman cavalry... n it doens't matter wat u call it btw.... they aren't as good and more often than not Caesar in his commentaries always reinforce how he heavily relied on mercenaries..... to make up for this.....aspect of weakness in the roman legions....

neo

the main reason y they were defeated by the Romans... was cos their formation was rigid n lack flexibility...... whille the Romans copied alot from the greeks, they modify it.... but then again.... u can't realli compare... as by the time they fought together.... Greeks was already at the end of an era.... whereas the Romans...were at their almost peak.....

2

neo

no the weren't... maybe a selected few.. but most werent.....

AHAH you mad? The roman cavalry was pretty good, it was really small in the quantity but an elite, find me a better cavarly at that time. Don't forget it was around the year 10. Basically the rich who could afford a total and full armor in iron to protect the body were supposed to join it. And they used to attack thousands of barbarians from the back. And you say it wasn't good? Go to read some history books pls, it's clear you don't know a crap.

Also martial arts do $hit against a weapons, get it. Also Romans NEVER hired non-Romans citizen for the war, it was an army of few thousand of soldiers against big army, and the good of their skill made them win any battle. Only in the later period Romans started to hire barbarians and mercenaries because the enemies were more and more, and the Romans even started to drop some lands like the britan, that was an uncivilized land at the time.

Don't talk without know anything thx

Also in case you don't know the Romans used the Cataphracts from the year 100 about, it wasn't introducted from the Byzantine Roman empire, and the Cataphracts used to fight also with the bow, they were totally covered with iron, and so the horse, This unity was then used from the Byzantine Roman empire for over 1000 years more and you say the Roman cavalry wasn't good.

bro.... Romans used cataphracts onli very late in their history and mainly in the east under the emperor Hadrian, and around 117 AD!!!!..... at a time... when the ROman empire is not at their peak.....

from my memory... The Parthian army that defeated the Romans at Carrhae in 53 BC operated primarily as a combined team of cataphracts and horse archers against the Roman heavy infantry.

neo

i am not talking about "citizens".. but rather ... non-Romans.....

i find it amazin u constantly refer romans at time tht is not at their peak....
ROmans were peaking during Caesar times..... n plz get tht right

neo

Stop double posting. Warned.

Yeah, warned.

Each quote does not need their own post. If you want to respond to each quote, click on each quote button, and press Add Reply. They will show up.

k thx.....
2

You are not even a moderator, fool

No Wokoo, are YOU mad? the Sarmatians and the Gaulish were the best cavalrymen at that time! Have you been playing Rome Total War too much or something? Rome's strongpoints were its infantry and engineering skills!

I suggest YOU go read a history book yourself. Rome never hired non-Roman citizens? I don't know what histroy course you've taken and what stuff you have read man. Anyone who could afford iron armor must join the army? Rome established possibly the world's first professional armed forces. Men were recruited, not conscripted, and served for 2-3 decades term. We're not talking about the Greek city states here, or the Roman Republic in the Punic Wars days where men must be able to afford their own equipment.

The Romans were known not to be good cavalrymen, hence almost all of their mounted forces were non-Romans. Like I said, Gaulish and Sarmatians were preferred since they were feared for their skills on the horseback. Who the hell do you think the Romans copied the cataphract concept from anyways after the split? Over most of Rome's imperial history, the cavalry had always remained the weakest part of its army. No, they don't charge straight on into naked barbarian hordes; they usually serve as a defense screen, scouts, skirmishers, or flanking forces. the might of the Roman still relied on their highly disciplined legions.


Seriously, shut up before you embarrass yourself.




It doesn't hurt to pretend to speak like one for a while

not my section but i couldnt help but join this mud fest. (not a flame war yet i guess , uless u got a samurai and a greek guy there)

Wokoo- i will say this once you are retarded and you really need to read what they say closely. You keep saying the same thing over and over with out realizing you are making yourself to look like an idiot.

seriously. how did a "samurai vs roman soldier" become "our weapons will kill u even before you realise it"???

try to stay on the topic instead of trying to make yourself "right"

lol, Col buddy dont worry about those dumasses; its been like 11 pages now and those retards still cant get it through their thick heads, worse still are all these uber samurai noobs influenced by anime claiming how great they are or those SPQR freaks roma victor maniacs....

im already sick of it lol, let them be ignorant

wow makes me feel like watching the history channel for a special on this subject lol

No it's you who doens't stay on the topic, my first reply was about the topic, then ppl keep to say shaolin monk would beat anybody etc. I read bull$hit basically wrong about Roma, and i feel to correct it, if after your ignorance makes you even come out with stupid comments i don't care.

You base your knowlogy over a game, i beat you don't know anything, in that game Gladiators were even part of the army, how much ignorance.

And i never said Romans never hired non-roman citizen, i said they did it only on the late empire. Never read some book from the historian of that time? When they used to comparate the army of Roma to the army of Cartagine?

Feeling i'm arguingin with teenages, pretty sick.

I'm saying you probably got your info over a game; Rome's cavalry being the best and the elite of their time? Do you even know who the Sarmatians are? The Sythians? The Parthians? Mounted combat was exactly what destroyed the legions at the Battle of Carrhae.

Oh did i ever mention Gladiator? What info did that movie teach us? Enlighten us plz. Gladiator used in the army? This part wasn't even on the extended version lol. I don't know what kind of books you've been reading and how high your reading and comprehension skills are, history books for retarded peoples History for 4th Grade?

A single Roman Legion was consisted of around 4k regular legionairres and couple thousand auxilaries. They've been hiring auxiliaries to supplement the legions and to combat the natives of various regions as well as for garrison duties. The Augustus model of a single legion was 4k regular leginnaries supplements by regional auxiliaries to help out in combat styles the regulars were not very well adapted to; ala mounted and archery combat for example. Hell, when Scripio was in Africa, he had a good portion of his forces composed of Spanish auxiliars. Auxiliaries were recruited from conquered regions, serving somewhat longer terms than the average legionnaire and were rewarded with Roman citizenship at the end of their term. In the late empire before the split, Rome could barely afford to properly train and maintain her professional army, hence that's why they began to hire mercenary units who were basically "barbarians" themselves commanded by Roman officers. By that time, the Legions were but a shadow of their former self. Rome was totally wrecked based on several factors:
1. Not very well-maintained and trained Legions always spread thin
2. Uses of unreliable barbarian mercenaries who sometimes even turned on their "commanders"
3. The Barbarian HORDE!!!!!

I suggest you really grow up and shut up before you embarrass yourself even further.

After reading through several pages of this thread, I can't help but remark at the ignorance and erroneous assumptions being made here. What is all this talk about how the super-uber Romans would supposedly pummel the rag-tag hordes of Chinese peasants? The Han vs. Rome thread was closed for no good reason but since EvilAsianDude has brought it up again in this thread, all I'll say for now is that the hope of Roman superiority in a military comparison against the Han is nothing more than a dream, and all the aforementioned descriptions of supposed Roman superiorities are nothing more than illogical, erroneous, and baseless assumptions.

And BTW how the hell did the comparison of "Shaolin monks vs. Spartans, Mongols" even come up? As some people have pointed out, the comparison is ridiculous and pointless. Shaolin monks were Buddhist monks, not soldiers, though that does not say anything about their individual fighting skills. Nevertheless, no state in their right mind would be so idiotic as to rely on a small group of monks with supposed super-fighting abilities who weren't accustomed to military tactics to defend their territory, especially since, for example, the empires of China could field armies far more effective and powerful than most people here seem to think.

And Col. Though the Sarmatians and the Gauls generally had better skilled cavalry than the Romans, Gallic cavalry was far from being the "best cavalrymen at that time". The Gauls weren't known for their cavalry. As for the Sarmatians, all steppe nomads were equally skilled as horsemen and mounted archers, but the Sarmatian cavalries were not qualitatively the best of their time. The nomads of the eastern steppe had better quality cavalry due to better iron and steel weapons obtained from China and the "Hunnish" bow which was bigger and more powerful than the old Scythian bow that was stored in the gorytos the nomads of the south Russian steppe used. At this time, cavalry was generally better suited for harassing and skirmishing tactics than shock tactics, and, by the 4th century CE, the eastern nomads like the Xianbei and the Xiongnu vassals had stirrups, giving them an advantage over the western nomads in terms of close-quarter fighting, stability, and mounted archery. Stirrups didn't reach the West until the Byzantines encountered the Avars in the 6th century CE yet stirrups were relatively rare in continental Europe until much later in history.

I am simply amazed at how incredibly thick EvilAsianDude is. His rhetoric is a complete joke, as each and every one of his claims were destroyed in the Rome vs Han China thread.

Great post UnregisteredUser.

how the hell did the shaolin get brought up in a samurai vs roman soldier lol

beats me.... imo.. there isn't any point even comparin samurai n romans... as it is impossible cos they are in different eras.....

btw unregister bro.... good post
but i hav one comment to make about gaul cavalry as from what learned about Treveri - Julius Caesar, who in his commentaries, mentioned that the Treveri were war-like and known for their horsemanship. He said they had the best calvary in all of Gaul. Caesar had to face with 2 uprisings of the Treveri n in fact lose one of them and losing an entire legion as well....


btw is this the onli ancient history tread around here.. cos i would love to discuss ancient wif anyone interested.....
2
neo

If the conditions favor them then that certainlly means that a shaolin monk in a real situation wont own all other types of warriors. You finally admitted that they will lose to archers and rangers. Now your stating that if Shaolin monks were given all the advantages that the shaolin monks would win? What kind of advantages? Like if its a very muddy floor in which the armored knight sinks and the shaolin monk with his sandles and no armor wont? You call that fair?



Since when did I ever claim anything about the shaolin monks not being popular? Im aware that the Shaolin monastary was burn down before the invention of the television. And im also aware that most of the original practioners were killed. Most of what you see in todays temple
Wasnt martial arts banned in china for a certain period of time which is why you see all though acrobats rather than actual fighters even today? Naturally speaking since the shaolin were famous they'd be one of the first targets to ban.



And thats my point. You act as if only shaolin monks train long and hard which is fake. All kinds of warriors trained hard. Some were better then others either by tactics, equipment or intellect.


Yes and this discipline and bravery can also be used in a fight.


And, what is this credibility based on? What wars did they fight? Who else did they own? Did they perform any legendary deeds?


Well then I guess that means the monks would lose most of the time against real warriors. And what do you mean certain melee weaponary? You cant just give a mongol a weapon he's never used and tell him to fight a monk who has experience with the same weapon. And you cant have it one way or another.
You cant be a god of the fist and a god of dozens of different types of weapons. Since shaolin monks divided their training to doing several different tasks(sometimes sword, sometimes spear, other times axes or punching or wrestling). That means in a hand to hand situation a shaolin monk still lose to someone who spends his entire time doing nothing but punching and wrestling. Some of the best martial artists in china are not monks, they were masters who did nothing but hand to hand combat.

so in conclusion shaolin monks wont own everyone. They will to a wide variety of different types of warriors, and they were made into a romantic warrior caste in movies or tales despite not being able to really accomplish much.

Soldiers who are trained in Kungfu have an advantage of utilizing equipments and adapting to the surroundings more effectively. As for Samurai and Roman soldier. It really depends what Roman soldier we are talking about here.

Dont you find it funny that whenever a overly zealous Chinese nationalist cant prove anything and that he realizes he's wrong he just resorts to name calling and trolling? Look at their posts, they will call anyone retards, thick headed, noobs, joke, biased etc mainly because "THEY DONT SUPPORT THE CHINESE". Yup trolls like these make me sick. Oh wait you two happen to be those trolls, my bad lol
You chinese nationalists are so funny. You resort to name calling without evidence or anything topic related(that translates into trolling). You two are probally from the spoiled little emperor generation who cant take no for an answer and whine and cry like the babies that you are if your wrong.



I too have the amazing talent to write how illogical, erroneous and baseless something is if I disagree with it. In the real world however no one cares about these statements, mainly because its nothing but trash talk without anything to actually prove how illogical it is. If I want to prove something ill have to present something much more than simply name calling the other side. If we look at what youve written its nothing more than pointless drivel not even worth its weight in air.

Fine then Evil, we've come to an agreement! (Finally) Different warrior owns in different situations. Lol how many pages did it take? I believe everything that needs to be said is concluded by Unreg =)



Thanks for the info and correction Unreg, I stand corrected =)

It's blatantly obvious you don't care simply because you lack the ability to comprehend how illogical, erroneous and baseless your assumptions are. In the face of facts, your assumptions are less than trash at best. It's because I didn't want to sidetrack this thread that I gave a mere comment about it. If you're so intent and confident that your assumptions are correct, why don't you start a new Han vs. Romans thread and I'll gladly reciprocate and crush every one of your false spiel.



Since when have I started calling you names? In case you can't read, all I've done was attack your arguments. Talking about worth, just about every one of your assumptions about Roman superiorities in the Han vs. Romans thread is sourceless and baseless BS. It's your assumptions that are "nothing more than pointless drivel not even worth its weight in air". As for namecalling, it's you who resorts to calling the other side "stupid Chinese nationalists" when you could reciprocate no further.

meant for evildude

you so fu-ken anti- China its not funny. i dont need to go through every single post you make and show where your gay bias is or how dumb your blind @$$ is, thats for pre schoolers, your probably an exception

im not wasting time with you anymore.

if i ever do see you in real life and really hope i do.
ill kick yo korean nationistic fat head up yo @$$

yes im resorting to name calling since thats what you do so damn well i feel i might give it a try. oh and ill be a blind @$$ too if i wanted to in regards to your post. your such a great insperation for being a @$$hole

You see, this is why i dont even take your words all that seriously. All you do is tell me how poor my arguments are without providing any worthwhile evidence or anything that deals with the subject. Theres a word for this kind of behavior, its called trolling. You should look up on that. You havent stated whats illogical, erroneous or baseless in my "assumptions. Its even funnier since you bring up the word "fact" despite your poor ability to even bring up a single fact. Actually you havent done jack $hit, all youve done so far is name calling(which even a 5 year old child can do, not that your any different). My assumptions arnt correct, facts are correct and if you look at the facts Romans have the edge. Your poor ability to comprehend much less look into hypcorisy is incredible. If you think im assuming crap then doesnt that mean the other side who supports the chinese is also assuming stuff? The logic of chinese nationalists is just incredible, freakin little emperor generation.

And please go on ahead and do whatever you plan to do. Dont waste my time with your garbage posts.



Maybe not direct name calling but you have indeed utilized the poor tactic of attacking a persons credibility and arguments WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL.



Oh really, if it was so baseless then please counter them. Heck why didnt the chinese posters in that topic counter them? All theyve stated so far was that im anti chinese or that the chinese can mine and farm more. You also act as if China has a glorious military history, funny how history has shown over and over again that the only time the Chinese win is when they either fight amongst themselves or they fight some group much much smaller than them. Quit wasting my time and go start an argument if you want. Ill crush it will little effort. Unfortunatly I can sense that your very much like the typical chinese nationalists. Youll probally end up name calling and ignoring the entire debate, just like what Mr. Tree is doing/trolling.



Tell me how im anti chinese? All I mentioned was that the Romans were better than the han in warfare. Then you get all pissy-whiny-cry babyish when I mentioned that the Chinese arnt the god like race you view them to be? Youve got to be incredibly sensitive and dumb if you think im anti chinese just because I concluded that the Romans would win.
Didnt you cry like a little baby when someone posted up the battle of salsu in another topic? A battle in which about 303,000 chinese lost their lives to a much much much tinier army who lost almost no troops? With only 2700 chinese troops and the emperor himself returning alive? LOL.



Good, that will be benefical for both of us(mainly me of course since im tired of read dog$hit).



LOL, ooh im shaking in meh whee little boots. Its just incredibly stupid how you act all gangsta tough and threaten someone ONLINE just because they concluded the romans would beat the han.
how old are you 10? I suggest you go to anger management classes 101. Maybe then youll learn to behave and not threaten people online over a little debate. Most of what you nationalists type up is just hilarious, annoying or both. But it seems that im making some of you fools angry lol. If thats the case then you made my day. Ill be smiling for the next few days. Thanks for giving me a laugh 2



Great, keep up the good work.

QUOTE
Since when have I started calling you names? In case you can't read, all I've done was attack your arguments.


Maybe not direct name calling but you have indeed utilized the poor tactic of attacking a persons credibility and arguments WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL.

Thats because you cant read. and your blind like ive said earlier, he has already provided evidence yet you still claim he hasnt, blind.

Tell me how im anti chinese? All I mentioned was that the Romans were better than the han in warfare. Then you get all pissy-whiny-cry babyish when I mentioned that the Chinese arnt the god like race you view them to be? Youve got to be incredibly sensitive and dumb if you think im anti chinese just because I concluded that the Romans would win.
Didnt you cry like a little baby when someone posted up the battle of salsu in another topic? A battle in which about 303,000 chinese lost their lives to a much much much tinier army who lost almost no troops? With only 2700 chinese troops and the emperor himself returning alive? LOL.

rite, where have i ever claimed Chiense were a 'god like race' this is another reason i hate you, you put bs in other peoples mouths. you are definately sad that your getting orgasms from history....


Good, that will be benefical for both of us(mainly me of course since im tired of read dog$hit).

no thats because you cant read

LOL, ooh im shaking in meh whee little boots. Its just incredibly stupid how you act all gangsta tough and threaten someone ONLINE just because they concluded the romans would beat the han.
how old are you 10? I suggest you go to anger management classes 101. Maybe then youll learn to behave and not threaten people online over a little debate. Most of what you nationalists type up is just hilarious, annoying or both. But it seems that im making some of you fools angry lol. If thats the case then you made my day. Ill be smiling for the next few days. Thanks for giving me a laugh

hope you dont snap that toothpick of yours from over wanking

To be honest man, from my POV the others are kinda right about your reading skills Evil. Selective reading is badddd =P

Are you blind or unable to comprehend?

This is what I said:



Now do it and I'll gladly reciprocate and crush every one of your false spiel.



Of course I haven't done jack $hit; I'm afraid it's you that has spilled out jack $hit. Your jack $hit was assuming that Han armies were made up of poor, weak, pathetic, and crappy peasants without showing any proof and evidence that they were nor have you shown any understanding at all of the Han military system. All you've done was given a description of Roman legionaries, a rather poor one if you ask me, and assumed that the Romans were better than the Han in every way you listed them as without doing any detailed analysis of the Han military system. It's clear you're assuming crap because the majority of your supposed Roman superiorities were baseless and sourceless assumptions. I'm afraid it's you that lacks the ability to comprehend; the key word here is source, genius. When I say back it up with sources, I mean reliable sources, and your assumptions are sourceless, therefore your arguments aren't worth anything.



2 Your hypocricy is incredible. You complain about how I started calling you names when all I've done was attack your arguments and now you resort to calling me a "Chinese nationalist". Perhaps it's time you need to turn on your brain and realize your own folly.



Right. So shut your trap and stop spilling out your baseless and sourceless assumptions about Roman superiorities and vent out your anger on your beloved "Chinese nationalists" elsewhere rather than contaminate a history thread with your garbage.

2 And you have provided evidence about your supposed Roman superiorities? I'm sorry but length has nothing to do with credibility; your posts were indeed long but quality-wise, they were nothing short of trash. I'll quote one of your classic garbage posts from the old thread:



It's you who has "utilized the poor tactic of attacking a persons credibility and arguments WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL."



They have. They've brought up warhead's rather good-quality posts but it's you who chose to ignore those threads and continue ranting about your beloved Romans.



The empires of China certainly had a more glorious military history than how you've painted them as.



Funny how you view history with such a narrow mind. It's amusing that you only chose to bring up China's military defeats but ignore the conquests it has done over other nations. It's even more amusing that because of your lack of knowledge and inability to comprehend the significance of China's neighbors that you even chose to put them down and minimize their importance in order to back up your agenda, ie "China was always militarily weak; its conquests were nothing, its neighbors were weak, China could only beat weak neighbors, etc.". It's no wonder that you can never learn the real facts.



2 2 2 Good luck in trying to crush my argument which I sense you lack the ability to do since you are ignorant of facts.



Funny. I'd like to say the same about you. And it's not as if you didn't do some name-calling yourself.

hold on this was a saburai vs roman soldier thread.... how did it turn into Han vs Rome......

this whole thread doesnt make sense to begin with. saumurai vs roman soldier..... a better comparison is a gladiator vs samurai or a praetorian vs samurai.... $hit it shouldnt even matter, the time-line is waaaay apart its pathetic.

i still stand that a roman army can crush a japanese samurai army. this can be countered that a gunpowder ashigaru army can crush a roman army

a roman legionare vs samurai.... i must say the legionare would win. sheild is a huge advantage in melee combat if we are considering the use of swords. and if we consider spears, the romans do have throwing pilums.

if it were a Han vs Rome the romans would be crushed, details can be found in the old han vs rome thread.

Just to start this off, I tend to remain neutral in all things discussed on these boards.
Evil, you still haven't provided proof or a reasonable/credible argument (sometimes simply ridiculous and blind-biased) for the following things:

1. Chinese tactics = jokes. Oh i see, based on one battle.

2. Wooden and iron shield of the Romans immune from melee and ranged weapons?

3. Testudo immune from melee attacks? Testudo with swords and spears? Are you trying to block arrows or form a pesudo phalanx? Testudo mobile and efficient? Tell that to the Romans who got slaughtered by the Parthians at the Battle of Carrhae! Testudo formation is inflexible, tiring, and absolutely sucks at mobile warfare. The enemy can run and throw $hit at you from every single direction, and i doubt the entire formation could turn at a par rate.



Have you confused yourself with a phalanx? I would liek to see you move fast in a testudo formation.

4. Steel a new invention at the time of the Han? Idk what the hell are you on, but steel's been around in China since 2nd century B.C.E

5. Legionnaire pillums attacking defenseless Chinese archers? Think everyone's an olympic thrower? They're called Pillums or Pilli, not the glaive. Each only carry like 2; they're designed to render enemy shields useless by sticking to it, thus slowing down the enemy and disarming them a bit.

6. Bow > Crossbow? The infamous English crossbowmen used the longbow because a, it's powerful, and b, it's very easy to produce. Producing a crossbow at that time in Europe is a bit hard you know. the Chinese crossbows are very renowned, but again, stuff you probably do not know. Crossbow bolts are more aerodynamic than arrows and have slightly better armor-piercing ability. You know why Chinese soldiers wear only light armor most of the time? By the time the crossbow was introduced and steel weapons were used, armor was simply useless. A bolt would simply penetrate right through a Roman shield (wood and iron)

7. Cavalry. Do i need to go wokoo on you? The Chinese were very good at cavalry warfare, compared to the Romans who disdained archery and mounted soldiers and only kept a small amount of auxiliary forces to do these jobs. I doubt couple hundred cavalry in a single legion would do much against the "Chinese hordes" if your "horde bias" applies here. roman cavalry carried spears as well as a slightly longer sword--the same armament that applies to most general cavalry units.

8. Roman legionnaires rarely defeated? Take a look at their campaign in Germania or the fight against Spatacus. The Romans couldn't take on another major power save for Carthage, and Egypt didn't count b/c Cleopetra's Egypt was a joke. Hannibal almost whooped their asses back in the Punic War days, but we're not gonna go that early. The Parthians dealt the Romans a good one, and Rome never actually managed to invade the Parthian's heart.

9.
Don't make others work to quell your own ignorance! Can you actually NAME battles where the horde tactics was used? Pure speculation, but I'm not denying it hadn't been used before since the overwhelming rush tactic is primitive stuff used by every military in world history. If you had actually studied any Asian history to any degree at all, Chinese armies did have numerous formations and tactics as well as innovation. I doubt you're heard of some commander using some sort of dried vine or something to create armor, rendering his soldiers almost invulnerable to arrows (don't know about crossbow) but at the same time extremely vulnerable to fire. The Romans were good at small-units tactics, I can give you that, for their Centurions were usually the ones who decided the outcome of the battle by managing individuals centuries to work up magic amongst the pandemonium of the battlefield. you forgot one thing; most of the time, the legions fought against unorganized tribes of "Barbarians." The Egyptians were a joke at the time; the Greeks were declining and outnumbered, and the Seleucids were getting hampered by the Parthians, Eastern Nomads, internal revolts, and Rome at the same time.

10. (I'm tired of numbering, all counter arguments go here)


Again, pure opinion and no facts to back it up. Holes were already seen in your arguments back when you and I were still arguing.



You, Are, Wrong. Simple and straight. Look up when steel was introduced, and when the Han reigned at its apex you ignorant arrogant @$$. (It's not a personal attack, it's my impression of you. You are ignorant in the eyes of almost every single posters on this forum, and yeah, i'm sure all of us here are Chinese and Nationalists. You're arrogant since you think you're almighty correct and others = wrong. You're an @$$ because you insult others for your own damn faults)



The Crossbow was around at least since ROTK era, you're wrong.



The Romans RELIED on their INFANTRY and everything else was SUPPORT. Jesus, have you ever studied Roman history? Or hell, ANY real history at all?



The Mongols used composite bows that were compact enought o be used on horseback, and arrows were tipped with steel arrowheads. Hence the immense penetrating power that killed everything. English longbow men used longbows because they were much easier to produce en-masse.



And all of a sudden you're well versed in Chinese history? Where the hell did you pull that Chinese employed archery the same way as the Romans? Out of your rear? The Chinese were very skilled at fighting on open plains and on chariots, and when the mounted nomads from the North came, they integrated the archery on horseback into their military system. Archery had been a tradition in China and all of Asia for eons beyond your negligible scope. The Chinese cavalary was of course no Mongol; they both employed different tactics. Chinese cavalry was designed to fight against the mounted warriors from the North; while as no one in the West was equipped or trained to defeat them. The Nomads eventually won due to imperial corruption and decline as well as field commanders being restrained and ordered to play along with the tribute system.



Steel weapons would penetrate every armor they could be made at that era, hence why most soldiers preferred light armor to maximize their agility with the concept that speed = armor. The Chinese also did employ elite heavy infantry armed with metal shields and swords. Wooden tower shields would not stand very long against steel weapons, end of story. Roman soldiers were better trained than the average Chinese soldier is correct.

I'll add more later; others feel free to supplement. And yes, I'm sure every single one of us here are Chinese nationalists and Roman haters, and anyone who disagrees with the "expert historian" here are ignorant. I highly doubt he has even taken any college-level or any real history courses or joined in any real life debates.

I apologize for adding fire to the newly sparked Han vs. Rome thing introduced onto this thread. But dammit, how the hell did i miss that thread? I probably joined too late or something. It just irks me when some close-minded fool start insulting others and claim to know history.

id just like to also add that Han although had superior steel, were also able to create high qua;ity bronze swords which were known to be able to hold sharper edges then steel ones could during the first half of the Han dynasty; this means Chinese bronze swords alone can cleave through Roman armour let alone steel ones.

also evils argument that arrows are crap and can be overwhelmed by numbers; your an idiot. you try running me over with a truck while i just pick you off with my sniper rifle. you sure have a strong argument there

man more than half your aguments can be counted by common sense, its pathetic. idd hate to find out that your a history teacher or anything near it...

man at least have some basic high school knowledge of world history.....

crossbows have existed since the time of Alexander the great, cant quite recall when exactly but it was known to exist since then.

lol evil, now your claiming roman swords can cleave up the han.... dude, han has stronger, sharper, lighter, more available steel swords that were constructed of inserted steel (qiang gang all these techniques mentioned were later used in tradional japanese nihonto aswell as korean/vietnamese/thai/burmese swords smiths) with a harder edge wit ha softer core allowing a strong, lighter, slightly flexible (resistance not wushu swords). the best the romans could claim was a twist-pattern core design which was simply two different iron alloys mixed together

u dont know jack about swords, rome, or han.... this argument is over.

u got owned

lol you can only select one choice for this poll

I think this thread scared everyone aay lol. Even Evil's not b!tching anymore XD

My god you people are ridiculous. You Chinese nationalists are so plenty, unfortunatly the quality of your arguments is poor just like the quality of Chinese armies.- Plenty but low in quality.


[quote]Are you blind or unable to comprehend?

This is what I said:
Now do it and I'll gladly reciprocate and crush every one of your false spiel.
[/quote]

No Duh? I think im well aware of that, unfortunatly you couldnt understand the main point of my post. QUIT WASTING MY TIME AND GET TO THE POINT. I state how the romans will win, you b!tch like a dog at my statement with a bunch of bloated garbage and waste my time. In fact your doing the same thing right now. Lets look at your entire post so far-

[quote]Of course I haven't done jack $hit; I'm afraid it's you that has spilled out jack $hit. Your jack $hit was assuming that Han armies were made up of poor, weak, pathetic, and crappy peasants without showing any proof and evidence that they were nor have you shown any understanding at all of the Han military system. All you've done was given a description of Roman legionaries, a rather poor one if you ask me, and assumed that the Romans were better than the Han in every way you listed them as without doing any detailed analysis of the Han military system. It's clear you're assuming crap because the majority of your supposed Roman superiorities were baseless and sourceless assumptions. I'm afraid it's you that lacks the ability to comprehend; the key word here is source, genius. When I say back it up with sources, I mean reliable sources, and your assumptions are sourceless, therefore your arguments aren't worth anything.

[quote]And you have provided evidence about your supposed Roman superiorities? I'm sorry but length has nothing to do with credibility; your posts were indeed long but quality-wise, they were nothing short of trash. I'll quote one of your classic garbage posts from the old thread:[/quote]

Please, if they were long and low on quality im pretty sure youll have no trouble crushing my points. Please do so rather than your constant low class trash talking.

[quote]It's you who has "utilized the poor tactic of attacking a persons credibility and arguments WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL."[/quote]

Then I guess this means you need to learn to read.

[quote]They have. They've brought up warhead's rather good-quality posts but it's you who chose to ignore those threads and continue ranting about your beloved Romans.[/quote]

No they havent, all theyve stated was a bunch of crap like
Han can farm more
Han can make more iron weapons
A different type of huns beat a divided roman empire full of barbarian mercinaries therefore the han should win

blah blah blah.
[quote]The empires of China certainly had a more glorious military history than how you've painted them as.[/quote]

Glorious victories include- overwhelming a much much smaller army and beating them on shear numbers
Disaterous defeats include- Losing hundreds of thousands of men against much smaller armies due to poor decision and low quality.

[quote]Funny how you view history with such a narrow mind. It's amusing that you only chose to bring up China's military defeats but ignore the conquests it has done over other nations.[/quote]

Yes im aware of the conquest over much smaller smaller tribes of people. Or in other cases the defeat the chinese had against much smaller smaller tribes. Besides that China for most of history had the largest population in the world. Of course a lot of land is necessary.

[quote]It's even more amusing that because of your lack of knowledge and inability to comprehend the significance of China's neighbors that you even chose to put them down and minimize their importance in order to back up your agenda, ie "China was always militarily weak; its conquests were nothing, its neighbors were weak, China could only beat weak neighbors, etc.". It's no wonder that you can never learn the real facts.[/quote]

Conquest of other chinese or much smaller tribes. Look carefully at history at all the battles the Chinese lost, they all lost them against much much smaller armies. Wheras almost all Chinese victories were won by shear numbers(unless they were fighting other chinese). And you tell me that the Chinese were expert tacticians. Much like how 60-80k mongols conquered all of China or how 303,000 chinese were killed in a single battle while the other side didnt even lost 3000 troops.

[quote]Good luck in trying to crush my argument which I sense you lack the ability to do since you are ignorant of facts.[/quote]

I cant crush your arguments mainly because you dont have any. Your entire post so far doesnt even mention why the han will win. What is there for me to crush? Nothing, what a waste of my time.

[quote]Funny. I'd like to say the same about you. And it's not as if you didn't do some name-calling yourself. [/quote]

You cant call me a troll when I happen to be arguing and part of the debate. Point troll posts with nothing but name calling = trolling. You and mr. tree both fit the term "trolling" nicely.

[quote]Thats because you cant read. and your blind like ive said earlier, he has already provided evidence yet you still claim he hasnt, blind.[/quote]

Right, whatever and time and time again youve show how pathetic you are. So sad. You threaten to beat me up in real life lol. You claim that your not going to waste any more time with me yet you just replied to me lol.

[quiote]rite, where have i ever claimed Chiense were a 'god like race' this is another reason i hate you, you put bs in other peoples mouths. you are definately sad that your getting orgasms from history....[/quote]

if you had so much as common sense I used the example of that battle of salsu to show how insecure and how you view the Chinese. When that guy posted the battle of salsu you instantly insulted him, I dont remeber what you posted but I do remember you posting how its fake, lies and resorted to trash talking him despite it being recorded in history. Yes we all know how insecure and immature you are. After all you call anyone who concludes that romans will win as "anti-chinese" and you also seem to threaten people online just because they believe that the han will lose to the romans. Lol so funny, id like to put you into a circus.

[quote]hope you dont snap that toothpick of yours from over wanking[/quote]

Another reason why I dont take you seriously. Threatning someone online and now this. Freakin hilarious 2


[quote]To be honest man, from my POV the others are kinda right about your reading skills Evil. Selective reading is badddd =P [/quote]

Sorry but to be honest your the one whos selectivly reading. You first stated that Shaolin monks will own everyone, then I was able to prove that shaolin monks will lose to cavalry and archer warriors(which took like 5 danm posts just for it to get into your thick skull). Then you claim that Shaolin monks own everyone who doesnt use archery and bows which I later proved that other warriors train just as hard and that they have the advantge of the shield. Later I proved once again that other weapon using classess can defeat shaolin monks with no effort thanks to weapons, shield armor they used. Finally you stated that shaolin monks will own everyone in a fist fight, which I once again proven that they wont because other fist fighters who spend their time doing nothing but punching and wrestling will beat the monks.

Then you finally conclude after all that senseless bull$hit of some kind of hippie statement "different environments different winners blah blah". Which I NEVER EVER AGREED TO. A stone floor wont make any difference between a spartan and a shaolin monk to a wooden floor.

You conclude using poor logic like "they can do back flips and punch really really fast(which is hard 2 god I love saying that if gives me a chuckle).

Do you still think that shaolin monks will own everyone?

If you say yes: your arrogance shows and you even admitted that they wont
If you say no: then I guess your poor logical skills and lack of common sense shows.

A Samurai would win in all cases.. Samurais arent just blade wielding morons.. They are swift quick.. have so many weapons.. Alot of Ninjas are really Samurais. So you can imagine how much more a Samurai had to offer on the battlefield than just mere standardized Western stances 2 . That whole Samurai/Ninja seperation was a commercial showcase for modern days.. In reality Samurais and Ninjas never stuck by any honor code to a specific allegiance based on type. They honored their clan and that was about it... Why do you think Euros were unable to conquer Japan like they did other nations and establish colonies during the Age of Discovery? Ive seen Spartans fight in the movies and it's still way too slow and their weaponry might be heavier but it's not as strong or deadly as a Kitana. If let a couple thousand Samurai do their work against the Roman Army and the rest of Europe back in the day, I guarantee you there would be No Europe today. It would not exist.

You've been watching too many animes. Eh?

And you're so hopelessly stuck to the backflips and $hit argument? Have you been evolving lately and read ON? That argumetn is beaten to death already, and plus it's already BEEN PROVEN that you ate your own words with the mongol thing. you never did refute my stuff upahead about you and rome did you? Yes just because I think you're one thick-skinned arrogant ignorant @$$ means I'm Chinese and I'm a Chinese nationalist to boot. Unlike you, I let others correct me (look up Unregister's post) while your thickhead think you're absolutely correct. I did admit that I was generalizing too much did I? When people on the Japanese, Chinese, and Korean forums think you're a dumbass, that's gotta be saying something.



Using one of your "tactics" against you, show me the proof. Don't make me laugh by using some questionable instance. And god damn fix your damn post, i had trouble reading that $hit

[quote=EvilAsianDude,Sep 25 2005, 04:56 AM]
My god you people are ridiculous. You Chinese nationalists are so plenty, unfortunatly the quality of your arguments is poor just like the quality of Chinese armies.- Plenty but low in quality.

[quote]Are you blind or unable to comprehend?

This is what I said:
Now do it and I'll gladly reciprocate and crush every one of your false spiel.
[/quote]

No Duh? I think im well aware of that, unfortunatly you couldnt understand the main point of my post. QUIT WASTING MY TIME AND GET TO THE POINT. I state how the romans will win, you b!tch like a dog at my statement with a bunch of bloated garbage and waste my time. In fact your doing the same thing right now. Lets look at your entire post so far-

[quote]Of course I haven't done jack $hit; I'm afraid it's you that has spilled out jack $hit. Your jack $hit was assuming that Han armies were made up of poor, weak, pathetic, and crappy peasants without showing any proof and evidence that they were nor have you shown any understanding at all of the Han military system. All you've done was given a description of Roman legionaries, a rather poor one if you ask me, and assumed that the Romans were better than the Han in every way you listed them as without doing any detailed analysis of the Han military system. It's clear you're assuming crap because the majority of your supposed Roman superiorities were baseless and sourceless assumptions. I'm afraid it's you that lacks the ability to comprehend; the key word here is source, genius. When I say back it up with sources, I mean reliable sources, and your assumptions are sourceless, therefore your arguments aren't worth anything.

[quote]And you have provided evidence about your supposed Roman superiorities? I'm sorry but length has nothing to do with credibility; your posts were indeed long but quality-wise, they were nothing short of trash. I'll quote one of your classic garbage posts from the old thread:[/quote]

Please, if they were long and low on quality im pretty sure youll have no trouble crushing my points. Please do so rather than your constant low class trash talking.

[quote]It's you who has "utilized the poor tactic of attacking a persons credibility and arguments WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL."[/quote]

Then I guess this means you need to learn to read.

[quote]They have. They've brought up warhead's rather good-quality posts but it's you who chose to ignore those threads and continue ranting about your beloved Romans.[/quote]

No they havent, all theyve stated was a bunch of crap like
Han can farm more
Han can make more iron weapons
A different type of huns beat a divided roman empire full of barbarian mercinaries therefore the han should win

blah blah blah.
[quote]The empires of China certainly had a more glorious military history than how you've painted them as.[/quote]

Glorious victories include- overwhelming a much much smaller army and beating them on shear numbers
Disaterous defeats include- Losing hundreds of thousands of men against much smaller armies due to poor decision and low quality.

[quote]Funny how you view history with such a narrow mind. It's amusing that you only chose to bring up China's military defeats but ignore the conquests it has done over other nations.[/quote]

Yes im aware of the conquest over much smaller smaller tribes of people. Or in other cases the defeat the chinese had against much smaller smaller tribes. Besides that China for most of history had the largest population in the world. Of course a lot of land is necessary.

[quote]It's even more amusing that because of your lack of knowledge and inability to comprehend the significance of China's neighbors that you even chose to put them down and minimize their importance in order to back up your agenda, ie "China was always militarily weak; its conquests were nothing, its neighbors were weak, China could only beat weak neighbors, etc.". It's no wonder that you can never learn the real facts.[/quote]

Conquest of other chinese or much smaller tribes. Look carefully at history at all the battles the Chinese lost, they all lost them against much much smaller armies. Wheras almost all Chinese victories were won by shear numbers(unless they were fighting other chinese). And you tell me that the Chinese were expert tacticians. Much like how 60-80k mongols conquered all of China or how 303,000 chinese were killed in a single battle while the other side didnt even lost 3000 troops.

[quote]Good luck in trying to crush my argument which I sense you lack the ability to do since you are ignorant of facts.[/quote]

I cant crush your arguments mainly because you dont have any. Your entire post so far doesnt even mention why the han will win. What is there for me to crush? Nothing, what a waste of my time.

[quote]Funny. I'd like to say the same about you. And it's not as if you didn't do some name-calling yourself. [/quote]

You cant call me a troll when I happen to be arguing and part of the debate. Point troll posts with nothing but name calling = trolling. You and mr. tree both fit the term "trolling" nicely.

[/quote]

oh really Korean war anyone? if i remember right the south Koreans got runned over.... and u guys had a 900 000 strong SK army with UN surport US trained and US armed

we had weapons left over from ww2 and stil lriped ur asses open

[quote=EvilAsianDude,Sep 25 2005, 05:08 AM]
[quote]Thats because you cant read. and your blind like ive said earlier, he has already provided evidence yet you still claim he hasnt, blind.[/quote]

Right, whatever and time and time again youve show how pathetic you are. So sad. You threaten to beat me up in real life lol. You claim that your not going to waste any more time with me yet you just replied to me lol.

[quiote]rite, where have i ever claimed Chiense were a 'god like race' this is another reason i hate you, you put bs in other peoples mouths. you are definately sad that your getting orgasms from history....[/quote]

if you had so much as common sense I used the example of that battle of salsu to show how insecure and how you view the Chinese. When that guy posted the battle of salsu you instantly insulted him, I dont remeber what you posted but I do remember you posting how its fake, lies and resorted to trash talking him despite it being recorded in history. Yes we all know how insecure and immature you are. After all you call anyone who concludes that romans will win as "anti-chinese" and you also seem to threaten people online just because they believe that the han will lose to the romans. Lol so funny, id like to put you into a circus.

[quote]hope you dont snap that toothpick of yours from over wanking[/quote]

Another reason why I dont take you seriously. Threatning someone online and now this. Freakin hilarious 2


[quote]To be honest man, from my POV the others are kinda right about your reading skills Evil. Selective reading is badddd =P [/quote]

Sorry but to be honest your the one whos selectivly reading. You first stated that Shaolin monks will own everyone, then I was able to prove that shaolin monks will lose to cavalry and archer warriors(which took like 5 danm posts just for it to get into your thick skull). Then you claim that Shaolin monks own everyone who doesnt use archery and bows which I later proved that other warriors train just as hard and that they have the advantge of the shield. Later I proved once again that other weapon using classess can defeat shaolin monks with no effort thanks to weapons, shield armor they used. Finally you stated that shaolin monks will own everyone in a fist fight, which I once again proven that they wont because other fist fighters who spend their time doing nothing but punching and wrestling will beat the monks.

Then you finally conclude after all that senseless bull$hit of some kind of hippie statement "different environments different winners blah blah". Which I NEVER EVER AGREED TO. A stone floor wont make any difference between a spartan and a shaolin monk to a wooden floor.

You conclude using poor logic like "they can do back flips and punch really really fast(which is hard 2 god I love saying that if gives me a chuckle).

Do you still think that shaolin monks will own everyone?

If you say yes: your arrogance shows and you even admitted that they wont
If you say no: then I guess your poor logical skills and lack of common sense shows.

[/quote]

there isnt like a rule that i have to follow, besides im not actually using effort replying to ur crap, im just stating facts and common sense which dispels most of the crap ur spewing